The Court of Appeal has given a former lecturer at Makerere University who resigned in 1987 a lifeline, after ordering the High Court to hear his case again.
Pensioner William Semwatika Kibirango, who worked for Makerere University for 32 years from April 1955 to May 1987, went to court challenging the University for failing to pay his benefits in accordance with the Staff Benefits Scheme introduced in 1968.
The High Court ruled in favour of Makerere University, forcing Semwatika, a recipient of an Interim Award and a Meritorious Certificate in recognition to his service to the University, to successfully appeal the ruling in the appellate court.
The respondent (Makerere University) had defended the suit and at the commencement of the hearing raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Appellant’s suit is time barred by law of limitation because the scheme is based on a scheme under which the appellant alleges that he was entitle to earn pension way back in 1996 when the University set up DAP.
A ruling delivered in 2014 was in favour of the University with Justice Stephen Musota saying that the scheme upon which Semwatika based to make his claim was an In-House Scheme put in place by the University independent of the scheme which affects public service employees that is provided for under the Pensions Act.
Justice Musota consequently found that Semwatika’s suit was time barred and dismissed it accordingly. Semwatika being dissatisfied with the said decision filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal arguing that Justice Musota erred in law and fact when he held that the In-House Scheme was not subject to the Pensions Act.
However, the Court of Appeal judges rejected Justice Musota’s assertions, and ordered the High Court to revisit the case.
Highlights of the Court of Appeal ruling
*“We have carefully read the plaint and the annextures thereto. We have also read the written statement of defence. It is not at all apparent from the plaint and annextures that the suit is time barred. The cause of action could certainly not have arisen in 1996, because at the time negotiations between the parties were on going. In fact, the negotiations culminated in the appellant being paid Shs8, 889,600 sometime in May 2002, as an interim award.
*“An interim award, in our view by its very nature could not have been a final award, but was an acknowledgement by the respondents that they still owed the respondent money to be paid to him as a final award or settlement at a future date. The final payment had not been made when in 2009 Semwatika filed a suit from which the appeal arose. With all due respect to the learned trial Judge, we found no basis in the above holding. We find so because a letter to the appellant from the respondent dated 26 September, 1995.”
*“This money was finally paid on 27th May 2002. The cause of action for the remaining payment could therefore not have arisen in 1996. The cause of action arose in 2009 when the High Court pronounced itself on this matter in the Sentongo case (Supra). We find merit in this appeal and we hereby allow it. We set aside the decision of the High Court, and we substitute it with this decision. We direct the High Court to proceed and hear the suit on its merits without any further delay.
*“But at the time of his retirement, the respondent (Makerere University) acknowledged that the then existing Retirement Benefits Scheme for staff introduced in 1968 had become worthless over time and they were in the process of introducing a new and more meaningful scheme that would cover the Appellant and the other members of staff.”
*Hence on retirement, the Appellant did not receive his full retirement benefits. He had to wait till October 1995 when he received Shs871,128, being a one year’s payment in recognition of the Appellant’s long term service to Makerere.
*The University introduced the Deposit Administration Plan (DAP) to supplement it’s employees improved salaries. However, the only people who were eligible to benefit under DAP were those employees who were still in service of the University and had not yet approached 60 years.
*Therefore, Semwatika’s claim for pension was still under consideration by June 1996. Consequently, the DAP was abandoned in favour of a new contributory in House Retirement Benefits Scheme.
*But its only beneficiaries were employees who had retired between 1996 and 1998. In 2002, after numerous visits to the University in demand for his retirement benefits, Semwatika was paid Shs8,889,600 as interim award which he had been promised earlier on in 1987 when he retired, pending a new meaningful scheme which was being put in place.
*In 2009 he went to the High Court seeking Declaration that the he is entitled to pension calculated with the new pension scheme. He also requested for general damages for the “distress and inconvenience suffered”.
*That the judge erred in law and fact when he held that the law of limitation applies to the In-House Scheme and that the Appellant’s action was therefore time barred.
*“The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he held that the action arose in 1996 instead of the year 2009 when Court pronounced itself on the appellant’s eligibility under the In-House Scheme.”
*“The High Court should take into account the fact that this is a long outstanding matter, which has delayed in our court system for no good reason. The appellant is of very advanced age and has been pursuing his claim for over 20 years.”
The ruling was delivered on Wednesday by Justice Richard Buteera, and other judges on the panel were Kenneth Kakuru and Cheborion Barishaki.
Pensioner Semwatika was represented by counsel Francis Buwule and Benon Makumbi while Makerere University was represented by Andrew Kabombo.
